Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 09:41:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:27:26PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:50:35AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> > > > 
> > > >   kernel/cpu.c
> > > > 
> > > > between commit:
> > > > 
> > > >   45178ac0cea8 ("cpu/hotplug, stop_machine: Fix stop_machine vs hotplug order")
> > > > 
> > > > from the tip tree and commit:
> > > > 
> > > >   d62c673f4cfc ("cpu/hotplug, stop_machine: Fix stop_machine vs hotplug order")
> > > > 
> > > > from the rcu tree.
> > > > 
> > > > I fixed it up (I just used the tip tree version) and can carry the fix
> > > > as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but
> > > > any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> > > > when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> > > > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> > > > particularly complex conflicts.
> > > 
> > > I will pull this one out of the set that I mark for -next.  That way
> > > I can test and you can avoid at least this one conflict.  ;-)
> > 
> > Heh.  And the reason that it conflicts is that I fixed at least one
> > spelling error...  ;-)
> > 
> > Still, the one in tip is the official one, so I will proceed as planned.
> 
> Argh, my bad. I'd forgotten you'd already queued it, and I was holding
> onto it to make sure it didn't get lost. Now we haz it twice.

Better than losing the patch!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul